3223 réponses à ce sujet

[sp0ck 06]

The phrase "dumbed down" is the most overused on these forums.

I think those who attack BW for streamlining ME2 and turning into lolgears of war are really just upset because they wanted ME to be this exclusive, hardcore series that only "true fans" could enjoy. They are angry that BW made ME2 to appeal to a broader audience because it robs them of feeling l33t, and somehow superior to other gamers because they put some skill points in non combat skills and collect a bunch of loot. Since apparently, any game that incorporates good shooter mechanics is for idiots and cannot be a deep experience (I would direct your attention to Half Life 2 and BioShock for proof to the contrary).

Because honestly, what made ME2 appeal to a larger audience and bring in the highest critical ratings of any BW game? Was it due to ME2 being a game for idiots? Shallow? Michael Bay-esque?

No, it was because ME2 was simply a better game than ME1. The heart of the ME series isn't in old school RPG mechanics, it's in blending a great player-controlled story and characters with top notch action.

Look, I love old school RPGs. But that just not was Mass Effect is; however much people want to argue that ME1 was "80% RPG," it's simply not true. ME1 was a mediocre RPG in the traditional sense, and that's being generous. ME2 is not at all an RPG in the traditional sense, and it's a better game for it.

[Gunderic]

Phaedon wrote...

Everyone in their right mind wants more in-depth roleplaying and shooter elements.

The problem is that no one agrees as to what is more in-depth, and there are also the people who are obsessed with sticking a genre label over anything they find.

Were that so, I don't think they'd have gone exactly the way they did with Mass Effect 2 and then back again.

I was referring to those elements from a gameplay/mechanical standpoint ( not story-related ), which they're trying to bring back -- and Mass Effect 2 lacked.

[InvaderErl]

kregano wrote...

From what I understand, the reason why the so-called RPG elements you love were in ME1 was because Bioware had no idea how else to implement RPG elements that affect combat performance within the Unreal 3 engine and just stuck with what they usually did. It's not surprising that it was ditched in ME2 because let's be honest: Mass Effect 1 was a technical culsterfrak. It was a massive failure in terms of expandability, since only two bits of DLC ever came out for it despite Bioware's intentions to bridge ME1 and ME2 with DLC, and fixability, since Bioware couldn't fix the PC version's low texture Garrus face without a massive multigigabyte patch. ME2 turned out to be a far superior game because Bioware managed to learn from their experience with ME1 and basically rebuilt the game from the ground up, keeping some models and art assets.

Completely agreed here. A lot of the bulkiest concepts the first time around such as loot was because Bioware was trying to figure out how to actually MAKE Mass Effect and had obvious difficulty the first time around. A couple of comments from Christina Norman made it clear that when ME1 shipped they weren't even quite sure what kind of game they had made and when you look at the presentation made about the transition of ME1>2 it seems quite clear that it was a team that had a much more clear idea about the game they were making and how to go about it.

[elitecom]

Raxxman wrote...
This isn't true, I had an Infiltrator with AR training who had a sniper rifle set up for one shot before overheat single hit take downs, a shotgun equiped to knock people back (but not really do damage), and an AR for general purpose sustained combat.

First time round before AR training I had the sniper rifle set up to be the main dps weapon, the shotgun was used the same way, to make sure people didn't get too close to me, but because I didn't have the AR training I used the Sniper rifle as a sharp shooter, not key personal elimination.

My solider had a different setup as well, with the AR set up with explosive X rounds, for short bursts in combat.

The mods made the biggest difference, and it really should of been left like that.

That's an interesting way to look upon it, I never considered that before. I always thought that firing a Spectre Master Gear Sniper with the explosive ammunition felt a bit like an anti-material or a mass accelerator cannon.

[Lumikki]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

What's the real problem here is. What type of game Mass Effect serie is?

Mass Effect serie is NOT classic statical RPG. Still some people think that Mass Effect requires classic RPG feature to be RPG. Problem is classic RPG features would DESTROY Mass Effect style totally and turn it to classic RPG. You can't put alot of classic RPG features in to action RPG games without turning it to classic RPG.

*snip

It's much more likely that particular person wants to add / not remove specific feature because he / she actually enjoyed it in other (maybe previous ME) games. Than it is up to discussion to determine whether other forum members agree or not and why.

Yep, but in what cost?  Also in the end is not us who decide, it's Bioware, we just say our opinions.

In previus ME some feature was change because they did not work well. While some off features was cut of or change because bioware wanted to go certain direction or because players where asking for it. Sometimes problem asking something is that player doesn't really understand how it will affect hole game and sometimes developers doesn't understand what players are really complaining, because players where not clear enough about the message.

Currently the most prominent features were "stats" and "looting things" because their role was especially mentioned in the article provided, but I guess, any other feature can be discussed as well.

Discuss in what end? We players here don't agree and developers has decide to go certain direction. Then we can discuss as long people like, but it will change nothing.

So, IMO, it is better to argue about usefulness of particular feature than Bioware's development direction and consumers' ability to interfere in it.  

Sure, what feature you want to discuss? Also sometimes having the feature is the choise of direction as well.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:32 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Misconceptions aplenty in this thread about why "stats" are important in RPGs.

Stats being defined (by me) as a statistical representation of the character's attributes, skill, abilities, etc in numeric form. You have x in INT, or x in Assault Rifles, etc.

People argue that the Role Playing is about interaction. With stories, characters, the game world, etc. True, but to ignore the importance of stats would be like driving a car without wheels.

Can you drive your car without wheels? No, of course not.

Is the purpose of driving your car merely for the sake of your wheels? Well, you tell me.

In a similar vein, RPGs are not about stats, or loot.

But they cannot function as RPGs without such elements. In a game like Mass Effect, it (teniously) works because it's a hybrid game. It's a Third Person Shooter first and an RPG second. But to say that it is an RPG simply because you have a role that you play, you interact with the story, characters, game world and are able to make decisions on them is not correct if you're making the argument that Mass Effect is as RPG as say, Baldur's Gate.

If it was, games like Bioshock, RDR, L.A Noire & Heavy Rain are RPGs.

-----

Now as far as Mass Effect 3 goes, I'm not expecting nor wanting them to move in that direction. What I want first and foremost is meaningful customisation elements whether it's in equipment or character build and varied or open gameplay.

I want Shepard to be given an objective, then given the freedom to complete it in the way he wants to. Multiple solutions that cater to different personalities and character types. This would obviously require more open levels, though.

Example: Mission - Get to Krogan Princess.

Mass Effect 1/2 method - Run through corridors, killing everything.
Mass Effect 3 method - Run through corridors, killing everything or hack a terminal and find the optimal route with little/no combat or hack a terminal and spike other terminals at certain points to disable security or plant explosives at certain points to create "shortcuts" or use biotics, the human explosive or a combination of all of the above, with varying results and encounters depending on how you complete it, your various abilities, etc.

This, along with a larger variety of quests (puzzle solving, diplomacy, infiltration, etc) would make me a pretty happy camper.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:22 .

[Lumikki]

mrcrusty wrote...

Misconceptions aplenty in this thread about why "stats" are important in RPGs.

Yes, in classic RPG, but Mass Effect is NOT just RPG, it's hybrid of action RPG and TPS combat. That change everyting. Because RPG and TPS doesn't go hand by hand in every feature.

Mass Effect 2 method - Run through corridors, killing everything.

Exactly what did happen also in ME1.


I agree you point of needing other than combat solutions. Focus is too much in combat in general. Of course other hand ME serie is war story.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:22 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Way to miss the rest of my post, there.

Specifically:

But they cannot function as RPGs without such elements. In a game like Mass Effect, it (teniously) works because it's a hybrid game. It's a Third Person Shooter first and an RPG second.

and

Now as far as Mass Effect 3 goes, I'm not expecting nor wanting them to move in that direction.

But that's okay, carry on.

Lumikki wrote...

Exactly what did happen also in ME1.

There were moments on say Noveria where it was a bit more varied.

But, so? Would you like me to edit it?

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:21 .

[Varen Spectre]

Phaedon wrote...

We have seen diverse power evolution, were promised a larger economy and better loot, as well as evolving powers.

So I don't see the problem.

Hmmm, I don't have any. 

At least not with the (promised) improvements in Mass Effect 3. 

But the discussion, especially at the beginning exceeded ME 3's features and was more about the purpose and use of "stats", "loot" and other RPG aspects in general. Many people (including me) stated their opinions and it was quite worth reading. But than the topic shifted to forumites' right to demand something from Bioware and it was neither very interesting nor useful anymore. Not from the perspective of a developer who is supposed to read the posts and find out what do his consumers prefer.

Back on topic, I agree with your opinion that differences between weapons, skills, powers, etc. (technically, those are not "stats" since the stats are only numbers which reflect them) should be meaningful and signifficant. Of course, the more (signifficantly different) weapons, armors, items, etc. Bioware can provide, the better.

And I for one would like to see the "stats" of those items so that I could quickly assess them.

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:23 .

[Lumikki]

mrcrusty wrote...

But, so? Would you like me to edit it?

Nope, I'm fine with you comment, but it would be nice when used example from ME2 as something to be bad, when it was same in ME1, then use both as example as bad solution. As we are talking in ME serie in general.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:32 .

[Mister Mida]

Nothing I'll say hasn't been said before, and everything said in this thread has already been said in a countless list of other threads. Discussing this again has almost no point because most people don't want to change their opinion, because that'll make them look weak. But I'll give it a go anyway.

To be frank, the first thing I'm hoping for is a plot that's not static, backwards or contains bad writing. If that's taken care of properly, game design can go any way the dev wants to.

Nevertheless, if there are moments where there's room for non-combat gameplay, I'd welcome that with open arms. Even an easy tower of Hanoi puzzle would be a welcome distraction, since Bioware seems to love them really much looking at their previous games.
As for the customization matter, going further than ME2's system shouldn't be that hard, since IMO it was close to non-existent. The in-game vids showing weapons customization have potential, and I really hope they throw those ammo powers out of the window and turn them into the weapon customization, since they have developed a proper system for it now.

EDIT: and about the stats discussion, a note to everyone. ME2 had some stats as well. They just never popped the hood and showed them to you.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:27 .

[sp0ck 06]

mrcrusty wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Exactly what did happen also in ME1.

There were moments on say Noveria where it was a bit more varied.

But, so? Would you like me to edit it?

Err...what about Thane's LM in ME2?  Samara's LM?  Kasumi's?  Seems to me like there was actually more non combat content in ME2...

[Candidate 88766]

Gunderic wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

If you think an RPG is only about loot and numbers and stats then you'd love Call of Duty. It may not be an RPG but it has a ridiculous amount of stats to study and the equipment system is massive. And I'm only being mildly sarcastic - stats and loot fit a game like Call of Duty far better than a game like Mass Effect despite the genre labels attached to them.

This article is spot on - the deeper RPG experience should be about the story, the characters and the choices. That is what Mass Effect is and has always been about. Just because most hardcore RPGs have layers of stats doesn't mean they're needed for Mass Effect. ME1 wasn't the hardcore RPG some people here seem to be demanding. And it wasn't the loot system or the small amount of stats that made ME1 good (these features were generally slated in reviews); it was the story and the characters, so quite rightly these should be the focus of the game.

Yes Bioware has made hardcore RPGs in the past, but why should we begrudge them a chance to spread their wings so to speak. They've tried to mix genres with ME1 and ME2, and while I don't think either have got it quite right I think they are on the right track - I don't think Mass Effect would even work as a hardcore RPG as it often relies on its fast pace. The choices, the non-linear approach to the story, the customization, the levelling, the character interaction - all of these RPG features help make Mass Effect good. It doesn't need every staple feature of the genre to be good as it isn't a full RPG, it is a hybrid between an RPG and a third person action game.

Besides, we've already seen some RPG stuff being brought back in the very first round of marketing. If that isn't enough to please people for the time being then frankly I don't know what will short of revealing the entire game to them almost a year early.

Perhaps I would love Call of Duty.  I'm not much of a competitive online shooter type of player, even though I enjoyed the nice touches of character customization and sense of progression in Team Fortress 2. As it stands, I played World at War and didn't find it all that remarkable, but it's very possible I never gave it a fair enough try, but again, I don't play online shooters that frequently.

You seem to be of the opinion that people requesting more roleplaying elements get giddy everytime they see or roll a dice, deadset on requesting "vanity statistics" which are "absolutely pointless" and "don't affect the game at all", or loot "which makes inventory management a pain" and "prevents me from heading straight into the action"; not to imply you suggested all of the above, but this is more or less what I've seen from a few posters here on these forums. I don't think this is entirely the case

There is nothing wrong with a more action-oriented RPG hybrid with shooter elements per se: this is what Mass Effect 1 was intended to be from the beginning, and I suspect that no amount of RPG elements or extra features BioWare will add at this point has the ability to change that.

People are more often not so pleased with the systematic removal of features, which were present in the first game to begin with -- hence the complaints over the shift in the series' focus. BioWare's version of "spreading its wings" over the last couple of years has decidedly involved removing various aspects from their game series the further they capitalize on their franchises' successes.

More or less implying something along the lines of "nothing's perfect" or "not everyone can be pleased" does not directly address any complaints raised as to the current state and future direction of the series.

At present, the series has experienced a devolution into what I would describe as "a cover-based corridor shooter with roleplaying game elements", as opposed to a RPG/TPS hybrid. I certainly don't consider myself oblivious to Mass Effect 1's flaws either, though.

That was a genuinely sensible answer that also made me come across as a bit of a dick by comparison, so I am sorry about that . I wasn't trying to be.

I wasn't trying to imply that people who want RPG elements are clearly massive fans of things like D&D, Warhammer or dice-based games like that. I just feel that many of the RPG features people want in ME3 either weren't present in ME1, didn't work in ME1 or just outright aren't appropriate for the style of game Bioware has tried to go for with the Mass Effect franchise. An extensive loot system, for example, doesn't really fit the feel Bioware has gone for. Shepard is supposed to be some kind of galactic hero, inspired by characters like Han Solo or Captain Kirk - it just doesn't fit the grand feel of the game to go around collecting piles of guns from every nook and cranny. There is a place for loot, and I would prefer a bit more than there was in ME2, but it isn't really necessary for a Mass Effect game to be enjoyable.

The problem I've had with some other posters oon this thread is that they seem to feel Bioware has betrayed their fans by their approach to Mass Effect, but the differences between ME1 and ME2 really aren't as big as people make out, and ME3 so far looks pretty close to what ME1 had in terms of RPG features like customization - which I did feel was lacking for the weapons in ME2, although the armour was a massive step in the right direction.

I also don't think people should be upset that Bioware is trying to capitalise on its successes. They hit on a formula with ME2 that the critics and the general public loved (although it does still divide this forum community) and I don't think people should begrudge them trying to expand on that. We should be wishing Bioware a mainstream success - I think they're one of the game developers that most deserves it. They're sticking with their RPG roots with SW: TOR and seem to be trying to find a middle ground with ME3 between what their long-time fans want, the Mass Effect fans want and what the general public wants.

Also, on a side note I'm not a huge fan of Call of Duty anymore. Team Fortress 2 is pretty good though - I think its now free to play so anyone who doesn't have it should give it a go.

[Gunderic]

mrcrusty wrote...

Misconceptions aplenty in this thread about why "stats" are important in RPGs.

Stats being defined (by me) as a statistical representation of the character's attributes, skill, abilities, etc in numeric form. You have x in INT, or x in Assault Rifles, etc.

People argue that the Role Playing is about interaction. With stories, characters, the game world, etc. True, but to ignore the importance of stats would be like driving a car without wheels.

Can you drive your car without wheels? No, of course not.

Is the purpose of driving your car merely for the sake of your wheels? Well, you tell me.

In a similar vein, RPGs are not about stats, or loot.

But they cannot function as RPGs without such elements. In a game like Mass Effect, it (teniously) works because it's a hybrid game. It's a Third Person Shooter first and an RPG second. But to say that it is an RPG simply because you have a role that you play, you interact with the story, characters, game world and are able to make decisions on them is not correct if you're making the argument that Mass Effect is as RPG as say, Baldur's Gate.

If it was, games like Bioshock, RDR, L.A Noire & Heavy Rain are RPGs.

-----

Now as far as Mass Effect 3 goes, I'm not expecting nor wanting them to move in that direction. What I want first and foremost is meaningful customisation elements whether it's in equipment or character build and varied or open gameplay.

I want Shepard to be given an objective, then given the freedom to complete it in the way he wants to. Multiple solutions that cater to different personalities and character types. This would obviously require more open levels, though.

Example: Mission - Get to Krogan Princess.

Mass Effect 1/2 method - Run through corridors, killing everything.
Mass Effect 3 method - Run through corridors, killing everything or hack a terminal and find the optimal route with little/no combat or hack a terminal and spike other terminals at certain points to disable security or plant explosives at certain points to create "shortcuts" or use biotics, the human explosive or a combination of all of the above, with varying results and encounters depending on how you complete it, your various abilities, etc.

This, along with a larger variety of quests (puzzle solving, diplomacy, infiltration, etc) would make me a pretty happy camper.

Pretty much. If I'd have only cared about the stats and the loot, I'd have played one of those old school dungeon crawlers. Unfortunately, they're not my kind of game ( Diablo-type games being excluded; I like those ).

Statistics are a key method for the player to interact with the world and track his progress. If you had low intelligence, you used to stumble about dim-wittedly throughout the game, speaking mostly gibberish. If you were not perceptive enough, you could have missed certain key objects.

These ( stats/loot ) are important pieces/facets of roleplaying games, given to the player to interact with the game world, but I'd prefer it if I could use them for a higher function than say, clobbering the nearest  goblin and robbing him blind ( though that would be nice too ).

Modifié par Gunderic, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:28 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Exactly what did happen also in ME1.

There were moments on say Noveria where it was a bit more varied.

But, so? Would you like me to edit it?

Err...what about Thane's LM in ME2?  Samara's LM?  Kasumi's?  Seems to me like there was actually more non combat content in ME2...

I'm not looking for non-combat content specifically (though it would be nice), I'm looking for varied and open gameplay. That often comes in the form of non combat content, as most of the game (both of them) is spent fighting. But it certainly felt like there was more non combat content in Mass Effect 1.

Think Deus Ex.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:33 .

[Feanor_II]

I'll give my opinion:
- Stats: I think that in a RPG it's mandatory somekind of character development, it might be through the traditional stats system or by any other way, as long as I am able to build the characters towards what I like and how i want to play. I wasn't upset with ME2 system at all, but it can be improved a lot

- Loot: From my point of view there should somekind of item/equipment management, both for my PC as for my squad members (in this case I really like Diablo's system where items continuosly get deteriorated but I know won't see this on ME3), also I think that commerce is a must. I understand the RPG as a complex genre and managing our equipment and economy adds complexity, in this case I didn't like the direction ME2 took, it was too simple.

Also I'm aware that ME series isn't a pure RPG, it's a hybrid but I think that what I've exposed should be present in a certain degree. I'm also open to new mechanics to achieve this not just "traditional stats and inventory"

Modifié par Feanor_II, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:33 .

[Candidate 88766]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

The phrase "dumbed down" is the most overused on these forums.

I think those who attack BW for streamlining ME2 and turning into lolgears of war are really just upset because they wanted ME to be this exclusive, hardcore series that only "true fans" could enjoy. They are angry that BW made ME2 to appeal to a broader audience because it robs them of feeling l33t, and somehow superior to other gamers because they put some skill points in non combat skills and collect a bunch of loot. Since apparently, any game that incorporates good shooter mechanics is for idiots and cannot be a deep experience (I would direct your attention to Half Life 2 and BioShock for proof to the contrary).

Because honestly, what made ME2 appeal to a larger audience and bring in the highest critical ratings of any BW game? Was it due to ME2 being a game for idiots? Shallow? Michael Bay-esque?

No, it was because ME2 was simply a better game than ME1. The heart of the ME series isn't in old school RPG mechanics, it's in blending a great player-controlled story and characters with top notch action.

Look, I love old school RPGs. But that just not was Mass Effect is; however much people want to argue that ME1 was "80% RPG," it's simply not true. ME1 was a mediocre RPG in the traditional sense, and that's being generous. ME2 is not at all an RPG in the traditional sense, and it's a better game for it.

This kind of hits the nail on the head, at least in part.

Also, I'd argue that "ret-con" is possibly still the most overused phrase, but "dumbed down" and "GoW/CoD clone" come in close.

[InvaderErl]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Look, I love old school RPGs. But that just not was Mass Effect is; however much people want to argue that ME1 was "80% RPG," it's simply not true. ME1 was a mediocre RPG in the traditional sense, and that's being generous. ME2 is not at all an RPG in the traditional sense, and it's a better game for it.

This bears emphasis.

[Lumikki]

Feanor_II wrote...

Also I'm aware that ME series isn't a pure RPG, it's a hybrid but I think that what I've exposed should be present in a certain degree. I'm also open to new mechanics to achieve this not just "traditional stats and inventory"

ME2 allready did go the direction not traditional inventory. Problem with it was not in base design, because it was actually good. Problem was that it did miss some customation options totally what normal inventory system would have provided, because Bioware did go too simplifyed customation.

How ever, they are trying to fix that mistake in ME3 as adding some customation options back. Meaning more choises for players.

Stat other hand is hard question. ME serie never really had them, unless you talk skills from ME1. In my opinion stats works well in classic RPG, but in ME serie you would need something else than TPS combat to have use for them, because TPS side doesn't need them. It's diffrence between character doing it (rpg) and player doing (tps).

I do support more different solution than just combat style kill all, but I'm not sure bioware wants them. In general I think Biowares games has allways been little too much "kill all" solutions. They haven't really much allowed players to be creative as trying to find other solutions.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:52 .

[Varen Spectre]

 

Lumikki wrote...

Yep, but in what cost?  Also in the end is not us who decide, it's Bioware, we just say our opinions.

Discuss in what end? We players here don't agree and developers has decide to go certain direction. Then we can discuss as long people like, but it will change nothing.

This is my favorite tweet of all time:

It kind of gives me hope that not all the discussion is pointless.  Not to mention that one can learn a lot in a good factual discussion (see things from different perspective, can be reminded of things he might have forgotten / neglected, etc.).  

Sure, what feature you want to discuss? Also sometimes having the feature is the choise of direction as well.

For example those "stats" and "loot". Would you like to see actual numbers / graphical representations of their effects in game's menu? Would you like to loot weapons and other stuff from deceased opponents? Do you want large / small / no inventory? Would you like to see skills at least in subsidiary areas like hacking, conversations, etc.? Do you like freeroaming?

(sorry if you have already ansewere anything of this by the time I have written it. )

Feel free to add anything what you consider an RPG trait and state you opinion on it's presence / absence in Mass Effect 3. That way we (or you) can learn something new from this. Or maybe not. 

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:52 .

[Torhagen]

Casey Hudson: People really want us to deepen the RPG aspect of the
experience. We interpret that as being about the kind of intelligent
decision making around how you progress. To us, the RPG experience isn't
necessarily about stats and loot. It's about exploration and combat and
making a good character-driven story and good progression.



We had progression in Mass Effect 2 in armour and weapon choices but
that activity chain was too simple. That whole activity chain I think
was a button we weren't really pushing in ME2 and specifically were
trying to hit for ME3.

here is strange thought they could have used the system they already had in place in ME1 geez

[Juha81FIN]

Lumikki wrote...

Feanor_II wrote...

Also I'm aware that ME series isn't a pure RPG, it's a hybrid but I think that what I've exposed should be present in a certain degree. I'm also open to new mechanics to achieve this not just "traditional stats and inventory"

ME2 allready did go the direction not traditional inventory. Problem with it was not in base design, because it was actually good. Problem was that it did miss some customation options totally what normal inventory system would have provided, because Bioware did go too simplifyed customation.

How ever, they are trying to fix that mistake in ME3 as adding some customation options back. Meaning more choises for players.

Stat other hand is hard question. ME serie never really had them, unless you talk skills from ME1. In my opinion stats works well in classic RPG, but in ME serie you would need something else than TPS combat to have use for them, because TPS side doesn't need them. It's diffrence between character doing it (rpg) and player doing (tps).

I do support more different solution than just combat style kill all, but I'm not sure bioware wants them. In general I think Biowares games has allways been little too much "kill all" solutions.

Many past bioware games rely on existing RPG mechanics, in ME, JE and DA they developed their own mechanics. I believe "kill all" solutions came with joining EA . (if I understood what you wanted to say).

Modifié par Juha81FIN, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:57 .

[Lumikki]

Varen Spectre wrote...

 

Lumikki wrote...

Yep, but in what cost?  Also in the end is not us who decide, it's Bioware, we just say our opinions.

Discuss in what end? We players here don't agree and developers has decide to go certain direction. Then we can discuss as long people like, but it will change nothing.

This is my favorite tweet of all time:

It kind of gives me hope that not all the discussion is pointless.  Not to mention that one can learn a lot in a good factual discussion (see things from different perspective, can be reminded of things he might have forgotten / neglected, etc.). 

Sure I agree with you and Casey here. Feedpack and our opinions are important, but in the end Bioware does make they own decissions.  What I pointed that we allready know that this forums people have split opinions about this. Because it has taked from day one when ME2 was released. Why you think they are fixing some issue, because most of us here did agree some stuff as need to be fixed. Seems that Bioware also agree related some issues.

Sure, what feature you want to discuss? Also sometimes having the feature is the choise of direction as well.

For example those "stats" and "loot". Would you like to see actual numbers / graphical representations of their effects in game's menu? Would you like to loot weapons and other stuff from deceased opponents? Do you want large / small / no inventory? Would you like to see skills at least in subsidiary areas like hacking, conversations, etc.? Do you like freeroaming?

(sorry if you have already ansewere anything of this by the time I have written it. )

Feel free to add anything what you consider an RPG trait and state you opinion on it's presence / absence in Mass Effect 3. That way we (or you) can learn something new from this. Or maybe not. 

Stats and loot. This has been discussed a lot, and our opinion here forum seem to be very split.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:07 .

[Gunderic]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

If you think an RPG is only about loot and numbers and stats then you'd love Call of Duty. It may not be an RPG but it has a ridiculous amount of stats to study and the equipment system is massive. And I'm only being mildly sarcastic - stats and loot fit a game like Call of Duty far better than a game like Mass Effect despite the genre labels attached to them.

This article is spot on - the deeper RPG experience should be about the story, the characters and the choices. That is what Mass Effect is and has always been about. Just because most hardcore RPGs have layers of stats doesn't mean they're needed for Mass Effect. ME1 wasn't the hardcore RPG some people here seem to be demanding. And it wasn't the loot system or the small amount of stats that made ME1 good (these features were generally slated in reviews); it was the story and the characters, so quite rightly these should be the focus of the game.

Yes Bioware has made hardcore RPGs in the past, but why should we begrudge them a chance to spread their wings so to speak. They've tried to mix genres with ME1 and ME2, and while I don't think either have got it quite right I think they are on the right track - I don't think Mass Effect would even work as a hardcore RPG as it often relies on its fast pace. The choices, the non-linear approach to the story, the customization, the levelling, the character interaction - all of these RPG features help make Mass Effect good. It doesn't need every staple feature of the genre to be good as it isn't a full RPG, it is a hybrid between an RPG and a third person action game.

Besides, we've already seen some RPG stuff being brought back in the very first round of marketing. If that isn't enough to please people for the time being then frankly I don't know what will short of revealing the entire game to them almost a year early.

Perhaps I would love Call of Duty.  I'm not much of a competitive online shooter type of player, even though I enjoyed the nice touches of character customization and sense of progression in Team Fortress 2. As it stands, I played World at War and didn't find it all that remarkable, but it's very possible I never gave it a fair enough try, but again, I don't play online shooters that frequently.

You seem to be of the opinion that people requesting more roleplaying elements get giddy everytime they see or roll a dice, deadset on requesting "vanity statistics" which are "absolutely pointless" and "don't affect the game at all", or loot "which makes inventory management a pain" and "prevents me from heading straight into the action"; not to imply you suggested all of the above, but this is more or less what I've seen from a few posters here on these forums. I don't think this is entirely the case

There is nothing wrong with a more action-oriented RPG hybrid with shooter elements per se: this is what Mass Effect 1 was intended to be from the beginning, and I suspect that no amount of RPG elements or extra features BioWare will add at this point has the ability to change that.

People are more often not so pleased with the systematic removal of features, which were present in the first game to begin with -- hence the complaints over the shift in the series' focus. BioWare's version of "spreading its wings" over the last couple of years has decidedly involved removing various aspects from their game series the further they capitalize on their franchises' successes.

More or less implying something along the lines of "nothing's perfect" or "not everyone can be pleased" does not directly address any complaints raised as to the current state and future direction of the series.

At present, the series has experienced a devolution into what I would describe as "a cover-based corridor shooter with roleplaying game elements", as opposed to a RPG/TPS hybrid. I certainly don't consider myself oblivious to Mass Effect 1's flaws either, though.

That was a genuinely sensible answer that also made me come across as a bit of a dick by comparison, so I am sorry about that . I wasn't trying to be.

I wasn't trying to imply that people who want RPG elements are clearly massive fans of things like D&D, Warhammer or dice-based games like that. I just feel that many of the RPG features people want in ME3 either weren't present in ME1, didn't work in ME1 or just outright aren't appropriate for the style of game Bioware has tried to go for with the Mass Effect franchise. An extensive loot system, for example, doesn't really fit the feel Bioware has gone for. Shepard is supposed to be some kind of galactic hero, inspired by characters like Han Solo or Captain Kirk - it just doesn't fit the grand feel of the game to go around collecting piles of guns from every nook and cranny. There is a place for loot, and I would prefer a bit more than there was in ME2, but it isn't really necessary for a Mass Effect game to be enjoyable.

The problem I've had with some other posters oon this thread is that they seem to feel Bioware has betrayed their fans by their approach to Mass Effect, but the differences between ME1 and ME2 really aren't as big as people make out, and ME3 so far looks pretty close to what ME1 had in terms of RPG features like customization - which I did feel was lacking for the weapons in ME2, although the armour was a massive step in the right direction.

I also don't think people should be upset that Bioware is trying to capitalise on its successes. They hit on a formula with ME2 that the critics and the general public loved (although it does still divide this forum community) and I don't think people should begrudge them trying to expand on that. We should be wishing Bioware a mainstream success - I think they're one of the game developers that most deserves it. They're sticking with their RPG roots with SW: TOR and seem to be trying to find a middle ground with ME3 between what their long-time fans want, the Mass Effect fans want and what the general public wants.

Also, on a side note I'm not a huge fan of Call of Duty anymore. Team Fortress 2 is pretty good though - I think its now free to play so anyone who doesn't have it should give it a go.

S'okay, I wasn't offended. :happy:

I didn't think Shepard looting containers and other objects in Mass Effect 1 was potrayed in such a way that it made me unable to suspend disbelief at a certain point. I'm certainly not asking BioWare to let us loot random, mundane junk items like you could in Dragon Age 2. Shepard also did ask the settles on Eden Prime for additional supplies during the geth invasion there, so using other found items during missions is brought up to a certain extent, if that matters at all ( even if it was just a pistol, in this case ).

I don't see it needing a lot of additional justification, compared to other settings. It's still ( almost ) as unrealistic if you'd be hoarding junk in a fantasy setting.

It might harm the player's suspension of disbelief if taken too far in some cases, but a little gameplay and story segregation is in order for RPG's ( imo ).

Modifié par Gunderic, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:00 .